Forums

Vote for best group of drafted QBs Topic

You can't simply isolate a QB's performance like it's some sort of mathematical variable ("solve for x").

Derek Jeter, according to almost all statistical analysis, is a HORRIBLE shortstop (and a pretty good hitter). But he's also revered and considered an all-time shortstop by most baseball people (and trucking company owners). Part of that reason is that he performs best in the postseason and on the national stage, y'know, WHEN IT COUNTS MORE. If Jeter had no World Series rings, would he still be considered one of the all-time greats?

Funny how MikeT stops looking at championships when they're not wearing pinstripes.

Derek Jeter, according to almost all statistical analysis, is a HORRIBLE shortstop (and a pretty good hitter). But he's also revered and considered an all-time shortstop by most baseball people (and trucking company owners). Part of that reason is that he performs best in the postseason and on the national stage, y'know, WHEN IT COUNTS MORE. If Jeter had no World Series rings, would he still be considered one of the all-time greats?

Funny how MikeT stops looking at championships when they're not wearing pinstripes.

Yes, Jeter would still be an all time great. Because his regular season performance is among the all time greats.

You can try to isolate the QB's performance. That's better than being lazy and saying QB A has more wins.

In order to figure out which QB was better at helping his team win, you need to separate team performance from QB performance.

Wow I actually agree with BL on this one (this should send him for a loop - he won't know how to handle it LOL).

You can't just say a QB is great based upon the success of his team. Sure, he's part of that, but a team winning doesn't necessarily mean they have a great QB.

Which is better:

Quarterback A has average stats for a starting QB over five years and his team wins the Super Bowl every one of those five years; or

Quarterback B leads the league in many significant passing categories for each of five years and sets records in some of them, but his team never even makes it to a single Super Bowl during that span because the team itself just isn't that good.

I would take the second one hands down every time and it wouldn't even be close, but many of you would think the first guy is better just because his team won and he "lead" them there simply be being the QB.

Derek Jeter, according to almost all statistical analysis, is a HORRIBLE shortstop (and a pretty good hitter). But he's also revered and considered an all-time shortstop by most baseball people (and trucking company owners). Part of that reason is that he performs best in the postseason and on the national stage, y'know, WHEN IT COUNTS MORE. If Jeter had no World Series rings, would he still be considered one of the all-time greats?

Funny how MikeT stops looking at championships when they're not wearing pinstripes.

I've never said "Championships mean nothing".

But they don't mean everything which is what you seem to be implying.

Tebow won games. There's talk that he won't have a NFL job next year. It's not like he's old. Why won't he have a job?

Derek Jeter, according to almost all statistical analysis, is a HORRIBLE shortstop (and a pretty good hitter). But he's also revered and considered an all-time shortstop by most baseball people (and trucking company owners). Part of that reason is that he performs best in the postseason and on the national stage, y'know, WHEN IT COUNTS MORE. If Jeter had no World Series rings, would he still be considered one of the all-time greats?

Funny how MikeT stops looking at championships when they're not wearing pinstripes.

Yes, Jeter would still be an all time great. Because his regular season performance is among the all time greats.

You can try to isolate the QB's performance. That's better than being lazy and saying QB A has more wins.

I never said that. I said playoff (and especially championship) game performances are worth substantially more than regular season wins.

Marino is in my top ten despite being bereft of rings. Bradshaw probably isn't in my top-ten despite four rings. It's the totality of accomplishments that counts. I just don't think throwing 400 times a year and building up stats only to fall apart in the playoffs (or not even make it) is much of an accomplishment. Apparently, some of you do.

Tebow might have a job (maybe backing up Kaepernick in SF) even though he's a ****** QB because he's a helluva running threat and a great marketing tool.

I have no doubt that most high school QBs would beat Tebow in a QB Skills test. But there's value in being a LEADER as the quarterback. And that's part of the job too, which is why Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, and a lot of the whiny breed of today's athletes will likely never be considered great QBs.

Jeter's performance in the postseason is actually close to equal to what he does in the regular season. The main reason he's considered an all-time great is because he's a SS with 3000 hits. If he were a Royal, he'd be an all-time great.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):Unfortunately, I don't think a career is built, or destroyed, in 4 games. If Montana played fantastic but his D just gave up 45 in each Super Bowl, is he less of a QB?

Because Romo chokes in the big game. I'd put Rivers just below Ben and Eli on an all-time list, and I wouldn't have picked either Ben or Eli in MY all-time list yet. Nobody said winning championships has no baring on the conversation.

Terry Bradshaw made it to 3 Pro Bowls in his career. Even Romo has made 3. Rivers has made 4. What does that say about this colleagues who actually had to make a judgement on Bradshaw's play during his season?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):Unfortunately, I don't think a career is built, or destroyed, in 4 games. If Montana played fantastic but his D just gave up 45 in each Super Bowl, is he less of a QB?

Hello?

They probably still win two of the games, because Montana had the offense running at that level. Remember, football is a zero-sum game. If your offense has the ball and runs a 30-minute drive without a turnover (lots of defensive holding calls on third down), the other team can't score. The Houston Oiler defense collapsed against Frank Reich and the Bills, but Warren Moon didn't help by NOT sustaining any drives to stem the momentum. The run-and-shoot and spread offenses aren't more popular partially because too many short drives (three incompletes) and you have a tired defense by the 2nd half.

So, the answer to this hypothetical is YES, he's less of a QB, because he should be keeping the ball away from the other team by sustaining drives and picking up key third downs.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/1/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):Terry Bradshaw made it to 3 Pro Bowls in his career. Even Romo has made 3. Rivers has made 4. What does that say about this colleagues who actually had to make a judgement on Bradshaw's play during his season?

AHAHAHAHAHA! YOU WIN THE DUMBASS AWARD FOR BRINGING UP THE PRO BOWL AS A CRITERION!

Marino is in my top ten despite being bereft of rings. Bradshaw probably isn't in my top-ten despite four rings.

I agree with this 100 percent.

Marion = excellent QB

Bradshaw = possibly the most over rated QB in history not named Tom Brady

I just don't think throwing 400 times a year and building up stats only to fall apart in the playoffs (or not even make it) is much of an accomplishment. Apparently, some of you do.

If your team's best chances of winning are having you throw it that much year in and year out, it's probably because you're good at doing it (unless you want to argue the team is so horrible they are ALWAYS playing from behind and have to throw).

Let's face it: Some QBs wouldn't have good accuracy, ratings, and even yards or TDs no matter how many times they throw it.

I'd rather have a guy with the skills to produce stats if and when it is necessary than a guy who can coast along on a talented team to Super Bowl wins even though he doesn't have the skills a great QB really should have.